The Only Side

The Only Side

                One of the countless downsides of war is the emotional baggage thrust upon the soldiers involved in the war. This baggage has been the topic of many literary works, for example: Tim O’Brien’s “The Things They Carried” and Thomas Harding’s “The Man He Killed.” In “The Things They Carried”, O’Brien uses the literal items that soldiers bring to war as metaphors for the negative impact that war has on the war-fighters. He uses these metaphors as windows into the minds of the soldiers in his story. Similarly, Harding explores a soldier’s psyche in “The Man He Killed.” Harding uses this poem to give the reader a glimpse into the mind of a soldier, and to let the world know how killing a man can have long lasting effects on that soldier’s mind. Both of these works address how mentally challenging it is to go to war and have to kill people in the name of your country. When these two works are read together, they create a chilling feeling for the reader who now has a slight understanding of the minds of the warriors, and an ever so slight understanding of the emotional baggage that our service members must carry with them.

                “The Things They Carried” lists off the physical objects that soldiers “humped” through Vietnam. These physical things that they carry are certainly metaphors for the emotional things that they are forced to heave through this foreign land. The items they carry represent emotions that they also carry, and the emotions are always heavier than the physical weight of the item. A perfect example of this is the character Henry Dobbins. Dobbins carries his girlfriend’s pantyhose, but with them he also carries the want for affection, compassion and comfort. This longing for love is much heavier than the twenty-three pound machine gun and the ten to fifteen pounds of ammunition that he carries. It is the same for every character in this story: Cross, who carries the maps and a compass, which are symbolic of his desire for order as well as a general longing for an understanding of the mission in Vietnam, has to carry the responsibility of the lives of the rest of the soldiers in the Alpha Company. There is no burden heavier than this. Through these items, O’Brien opens up the characters in his story. The reader is now able to (begin to) understand what’s going on in the soldier’s minds.

                “The Man He Killed” makes similar claims, though does it in an entirely different way. Hardy supplies the reader with an unsettling monologue that gives a unique view into the mind of a soldier. This poem tackles the nature of war—that war is dirty and makes men do things that they wouldn’t do in any other circumstance. Hardy uses that realization to open up the mindset of a soldier and really shows how harsh the reality of war is on the psych. Take “I shot him dead because— / Because he was my foe.” (Hardy 9-10) for example. The dramatic pause, then the repetition of “because” is as if the speaker is trying to convince himself that he did nothing wrong. He goes on to say “Just so: my foe of course he was; / That's clear enough; although” (Hardy 11-12), in a further attempt to convince himself, albeit unsuccessfully. The speaker’s inability to convince himself that he did nothing wrong is evident by ending the stanza with the word “although” then going on to say “Off-hand like—just as I— / Was out of work—Had sold his traps / —No other reason why” (Hardy 14-16) he basically means “well, he was only there because he was out of work, same as me” in more poetic words. This questioning of his actions, however long after-the-fact shows that the speaker has deep psychological issues due to the emotional baggage of war.

               Thomas Hardy and Tim O’Brien would definitely agree that the emotional cost on the soldiers is one of the most tragic parts of war. When O’Brien defines “hump” as “walk[ing] or march[ing], but [with] implied burdens far beyond the intransitive” (O’Brien) he’s not just talking about the just physical weight, but also the emotional weight, that the items that the soldiers have to carry. Similarly the speaker in “The Man He Killed” expresses that war is “quaint and curious” (Hardy 7) meaning that there really isn’t anything quite like it—and that if the speaker had met the man that he killed in a bar, he’d treat him to a drink, or at least help him to “half-a-crown.” This shooting of someone that he had nothing against seems to haunt the speaker, and one can only imagine how burdening that must be.  

               While the two authors may agree in message, their eye opening tales use different styles to allow the reader to understand just how destructive and overbearing emotions of war can be on the psyche of a soldier. For example, in “The Things They Carried” O’Brien uses a wide array of literary devices. The most powerful device is easily the metaphors that he uses throughout the story. He also uses the repetition of the word carried to drive those metaphors home, as evident:

“Dave Jensen carried three pairs of socks and a can of Dr. Scholl's foot powder as a precaution against trench foot. Until he was shot, Ted Lavender carried six or seven ounces of premium dope, which for him was 2 necessity. Mitchell Sanders, the RT0, carried condoms. Norman Bowker carried a diary. Rat Kiley carried comic books. Kiowa, a devout Baptist, carried an illustrated New Testament that had been presented to him by his father” (O’Brien)

The repetition throughout the story serves as the hammer that drives O’Brien’s point home. “The Man He Killed” uses a bit of jargon, when the speaker says “but ranged as infantry” (Hardy 5) it doesn’t flow nearly as well as the rest of the poem, because they’re not really words that the speaker fully understands. This fact alone is very important, because the speaker does not care to understand exactly what the words mean, just as he never wanted to kill anybody. It also uses an alternating rhyme scheme, to help the poem flow, and to make the pauses that much more dramatic.

                “The Things They Carried” and “The Man He Killed” are two different works, by two different authors, but share a very similar view of war. Be it through the use of metaphors or dramatic pauses, these works allow readers to look into the minds of soldiers, and see how they’re emotionally affected by war, and the act of killing. These works share the theme: emotional baggage caused by war is overwhelming and forever damaging.

 

Shakespeare: The Master of Dramatic Irony

The Master of Dramatic Irony

Irony is a very important element of literature. Proper use of irony allows for an audience to know things that the characters in work of literature to know things that the characters in the literature do not know. When used properly, this knowledge is used to create feelings of humor and suspense for an audience. The power of irony makes it a very common literary element, and many famous authors and playwrights have used it to dramatize their works. For example, in Oedipus Rex, Sophocles has Oedipus search for the killer of the king, only to find out that it was himself who did the killing. The audience of course had known the entire time—which of course made for many humorous situations. Shakespeare is considered to be one of the most renowned ironic playwrights of all time.

One of the best examples of dramatic irony is in his play The Twelfth Night, Shakespeare uses irony extensively. The use of irony in this play is the source of a majority of the humor found within the play. More specifically dramatic irony is incredibly important in this play. Dramatic irony is created when the audience knows something that the characters don’t, and this play is filled with it. The dramatic irony is used to create a very engaging and funny experience for the audience. Without the extensive use of dramatic irony, The Twelfth Night would not have been nearly as funny and therefore there are many examples of irony found within the play.

The first and most important example of irony in The Twelfth Night is the most obvious: the dramatic irony that is created when Viola and Sebastian believe each other to be dead, when the audience of course knows that they’re both alive. This situation becomes even funnier, when Viola decides to take on the likeness of her twin brother—calling herself Cesario. This will prove to get the characters into many sticky situations in which they don’t understand what’s happening. One of the best examples of this is the first time that Sebastian meets Olivia. Olivia has fallen in love with Viola (who was pretending to be Sebastian). So in Olivia’s mind, Sebastian is the man he’s fallen in love with, when the audience knows that they’ve never actually met. This causes their first meeting to be not only very suspenseful, but also hilarious.  The dramatic irony doesn’t stop with just that one love triangle, however. Orsino, who is Viola’s boss, loves Olivia. So, Orsino sends Viola to attempt to earn Olivia’s favor for Orsino. He was less than pleased when he first saw Sebastian with Olivia. It’s the perfect example of dramatic irony, and modern writers should take note: Viola is passionate for a man who has no idea she is actually a woman. That very same man is in love with a woman who is in love with a man who is actually a woman!

Even the minor characters have their own bits of dramatic irony mixed into their side story to make it just that much more interesting. Poor Malvolio has the meanest of pranks played on him, and the prank is made even funnier due the presence of dramatic irony. The dramatic irony is created when Malvolio receives a note written in handwriting that looks like Olivia’s. The audience knows that the note was instead written by Olivia’s servant, but Malvolio believes it to be written by Olivia herself. The note gives Malvolio specific instructions to earn Olivia’s love, and is full of things that are out of character for Malvolio. He wears ridiculous clothes and acts like someone that he isn’t in the hopes that Olivia will fall in love with him. His actions instead have the opposite effect: she is bothered by his actions and has him treated like he’s insane instead. The entire time the audience knows what’s up, and every one of Malvolio’s miss steps is funnier than the last.

The use of all of this dramatic irony helps to create one of the major central themes of the play: the foolishness of mortals.  Dramatic irony is pivotal in the creation of this theme, because it allows an audience to experience what it’s like to be omnipotent. It forces people to realize what it’s like to be all-knowing, and through that, they can realize that outside of the theatre, they are not all knowing, and that they only know a small portion of every story that plays out in their lives. This theme is backed by happenings in the play. Every character makes decisions and judgments without all of the knowledge necessary to make said judgment. Malvolio is one example. Had he took the time to figure out who had written that letter, he would have acted a lot differently. Another example is when Olivia’s friends and family first meet Sebastian. They assume that he’s Cesario, even when he asserts that he is not. When combined with the dramatic irony that’s present, the audience is really able to realize exactly how foolish people can be.

Another central theme that is reinforced by the presence of dramatic irony is that ocular proof is not always enough. Shakespeare tests the old saying that you can believe what you see, by finding a situation in which what you see is false. The Viola / Sebastian situation is the perfect example of this. The characters in the play frequently trust their eyes, and are frequently proven to be foolish because of this. This repeated ‘what you see isn’t what you get’ asserts that what you see isn’t always the truth. The characters see Cesario, therefore Cesario is who it is, even though who they’re actually seeing is Sebastian himself. The dramatic irony allows the audience to recognize this fact, and presses the issue even harder. The audience can understand that just because something appears to be true, it may not be true.

The irony allows for yet another central theme to be possible. Shakespeare questions gender with his play as well. Because of Viola’s adventures as a man, many awkward situations are made. Olivia falls in love with a woman. Would she have been able to fall in love with the woman if she knew it was a woman she loved? Orsino falls in love with a woman who he thought was a man when he met him. These acts raise an important question: how important is gender? If a woman can love a woman just because she thinks he’s a man, what’s to stop her from loving a woman? This questions is enhanced near the end of the play. Orsino continues to call Viola by her boy name. Even in his very last line of the play, Orsino refers to Viola as Cesario. This raises the question of what Orsino finds so attractive about Viola. He may be attracted to her masculinity. Shakespeare never answers this question however, and leaves it up to the audience to decide.

The dramatic irony also helps to identify some of the many motifs present in the play. One of the most important motifs in the play is that of mistaken identity. Repeatedly Viola and Sebastian are mistaken for one another. The repeated cases of mistaken identity help to advance the storyline in a funny and suspenseful way, as the web that’s being woven continues to become more entangled and complicated. The further the story gets, the more the audience can’t wait for the finale: the time in which the twins will be reunited and everything will become resolved and the desire to see that moment of confusion for the characters builds a ton of suspense. Mistaken identity is closely linked to another major motif in the play: disguises. Many of the major characters in the play assume disguises during the play. Viola uses a disguise to convince everyone that she’s a man. Malvolio uses a disguise to try to earn Olivia’s love. Feste disguises himself as a priest to fool Malvolio. The fact that Feste uses a disguise even though Malvolio won’t be able to see him asserts how important clothing is—implying that in order to be a priest, Feste must first look like a priest. Not to mention, in order to become a man Viola only had to change her clothing.

It’s clearly evident that Shakespeare intended for dramatic irony to play a major part in The Twelfth Night. Without the presence of dramatic irony, the plot of this theme would have been many times less funny and suspenseful, and three of the major central themes would have been much harder to detect. The Twelfth Night uses so much dramatic irony, and Shakespeare proves himself to be the unrivaled master of dramatic irony in this play. Dramatic irony isn’t only found in this one of Shakespeare’s works though; there are many other examples of dramatic irony found in many of Shakespeare’s plays. Dramatic irony is very central in most of Shakespeare’s works.

In Romeo and Juliette dramatic irony plays a major part in making the play more tragic. The most obvious example is of course near the end. Juliette takes the poison to make herself appear dead. When Romeo finds her, he believes that she is dead even though the audience knows that she’s alive. The tragedy is that Romeo, convinced that he can’t live without her, decides to kill himself. Juliette then awakes to find her Romeo dead next to her, and realizing that what he had done, decides to kill herself as well. This scene is perhaps one of the most famous examples of dramatic irony throughout history, but this play does contain more dramatic irony than just that little bit. For example, Juliette’s father promises Juliette to marry Paris when the audience knows that Romeo has already married Juliette making the union of Juliette and Paris impossible. Another example is how throughout the entire play, both families swear up and down that they can never forgive, but the audience knows that they will because of the prologue. There’s also the simple aspect: the audience knows that both Romeo and Juliette will die (also because of the prologue) but none of the characters are privy to the information.

In Othello dramatic irony also plays a very important roll. First and foremost, the audience knows that Iago is the puppet master for the rest of the play when Othello believes him to be a good friend and advisor. The audience also knows that Othello was never cheated on, and they know that Othello trusts someone who isn’t trustworthy. More dramatic irony is also created when the characters step aside to think aloud: this act allows the audience to see into the minds of the characters, allowing them access to knowledge that none of the other characters have. The use of dramatic irony in Othello keeps the story compelling and the audience engaged.

Dramatic irony is a very important story-telling tool, and Shakespeare uses it to its fullest in many of his plays, most notably The Twelfth Night, but also in many of his other works, including Othello and Romeo and Juliette. He masterfully uses dramatic irony in his works to create emotion in his audience, which has a drastic affect on how his plays are taken as well as the messages that they send. His works are time tested examples of how to use dramatic irony to create humor, tragedy, and suspense, and how to keep an audience interested through an entire performance. Shakespeare is truly the master of dramatic irony.

 

Loveless Lovemaking

Lovemaking can be one of the most electrifying feelings shared between two people, yet not include an ounce of emotion at all. Sharon Olds’ “Sex Without Love” suggests that despite sex being such a passionate act, it may in fact not include any love at all between the two partners. Olds’ addresses this matter on a very personal and blunt level to the reader. She questions how some people could have such a fire with each other and be so physical yet never have any true deep or emotional feelings for the other partner. Olds’ almost seems to show admiration for how these people can be alone and not depend on one another, yet makes the reader feel cold and empty from the loneliness of each partner. Perhaps it is just a purely physical act for each person, or maybe it is the result of deep-rooted abandonment issues. For such a beautiful thing, making love can be very impersonal for some people.

            Olds’ opens her poem with the main question of the poem, “How do they do it, the ones who make love / without love?” (line 1-2). This question sets the tone for the whole poem, the dual-views of awe and pity for the lovers. Olds’ follows up with expressing just how stunning the act of sex can be because lovers are “beautiful as dancers, / gliding over each other like ice-skaters / over the ice” (2-3). She is giving the reader an image to relate with of how beautiful and elegant the act lovemaking is, just so they begin to understand. However, this message could also be used as symbolism for something negative. Sex without love has the possibility of being “cold and impersonal” and nothing is much better than ice to use as a symbol for that (Leilani 1). There is also the chance that the lovemaking could be just a performance, just how ice-skaters perform on the ice, it may all just be an act for physical pleasure. In these lines, Olds seems to show the positives and negatives of lovemaking. Olds’ follows through with “fingers hooked / inside each other’s bodies” to show just how close the two partners are during sex both physically and spiritually (4-5). Olds’ sets all of this up to give the reader a good image of how pleasurable lovemaking can be between two lovers. So how could each partner possibly not love the other person or be alone in life?

            Olds’ first major hint of this is when she compares the partners to “children at birth whose mothers are going / to give them away” (7-8). Looking very closely at this line, the reader can get a feeling that there may be abandonment issues in each lover’s past. It is very possible that they were abandoned as a child by their mother which could explain the result of not being able to love another person so easily, even after making love to them. Olds’ then asks the second question of the poem:

                        How do they come to the

                        come to the come to the God come to the

                        still waters, and not love

                        the one who came there with them, light

                        rising slowly as steam off their joined

                        skin? (8-13)

This question is very interesting in the poem. I find that the author repeats the words “come to the” as a way of symbolizing the climax of the lovemaking between the partners. She says “come to the God” possibly because people may say His name throughout the act, especially nearing the ending. Olds’ then uses the image of still waters to represent the moments after the climax, the moment when it is most peaceful and quiet, yet so blissful. She questions however, how each person could go through all of that pleasure, yet not love the person that helped them achieve it, as they lay there, their bodies cooling down.

            After this question is posed in the poem, Olds’ proceeds to describe these types of people, instead of describing their act of sex, “These are the true religious, / the purists, the pros” (13-14). She seems to be using the term “purists” to show that the partners believe they are causing the pleasure themselves without the help of the other person, “They do not / mistake the lover for their own pleasure,” (16-17). This line reinforces the point that they do not want or need the other partner, and the sex was only for pleasure.

            Olds’ begins to describe the people in a rather awe-filled tone, while at the same time using certain words and metaphors that make the reader feel the loneliness that the loveless lovers might have, “they are like great runners, they know they are alone / with the road surface, the cold, the wind, / the fit of their shoes,” (18-20). A runner is usually alone, and knows it, as Olds’ points out. The road surface, cold, and wind, are all words that make the readers feel empty and alone, like the lovers. There is nothing in their world but themselves, and “the fit of their shoes” represents that they will not have room for anybody else in their lives. In a way though, the runner running along the road with the cold, wind, and fit of their shoes could very easily be construed as a very comfortable or refreshing feeling. It all really depends on what kind of person the reader is, whether they prefer to be alone, or prefer to be in love.

            There could be many different reasons why the lovers have sex with without love, whether it is the abandonment issues, for pleasure, or even physical health. When Olds’ states that “their over-all cardio- / vascular health” is a factor, I believe it could be one of the possible reasons the lover does the act of sex without having to be in love, same as a runner runs (20-21). Olds’ continues afterwards to say that everything she listed are “just factors; like the partner / in the bed” which is very bluntly and openly saying that the sex was just an act, a performance for whatever purpose the loveless lover had. Olds’ decides to end the poem with the truth of the matter, “which is the / single body alone in the universe / against its own best time” (22-24). She is describing just how alone the person is, despite having made love to another person. Using the words “single” and “universe” helps the reader to understand just how alone that person is in their own world. The phrase “against its own best time” is a reference back to the metaphor of the runner, it is used to show that the person will not be racing against anyone else’s times in a race, that they are completely alone and facing themselves.

            Olds’ ends the poem bluntly and harshly but she gets her main point of the title across. She seems to almost give respect for the loveless lovers, or even be envious of how they can commit so physically yet not emotionally. Ultimately, however, Olds’ makes the reader realize that they are completely and utterly alone and will not love the other person no matter what kind of connection, even one as strong as sex, has taken place between the two of them.

Expecting To Be Loved

New York City, Grand Central Station, people are moving at a pace most of the country has no experience with. After all, it is the city that never sleeps. John Cheever’s “Reunion” suggests that an attitude of arrogance and pride from a parent can ruin the ability to spend quality, one on one time with a child who is expecting and seeking that from a father. In this case it was the straw that ended the relationship according to the last line of the story, “I went down the stairs and got my train, and that was the last time I saw my father.” (Pg. 256)

            Charlie’s parents divorced three years ago and he had not seen his father since. He called and made arrangements to meet with him for lunch while traveling through New York City. He was excited to see him again. He reached out to his father for a visit while passing through the city. He loved his father and was sure he was going to “be something like him.” (Pg. 256) Without being totally aware of it Charlie may have had some pre conceived ideas of how the lunch date would go that aren’t uncommon expectations for children to have of a parent. I’m sure he expected to have a nice lunch with some undivided attention and catch on up some of the time they have missed apart from each other, otherwise why would he have made an effort to see his dad. Unfortunately that’s not exactly how the story unfolded. There are several reasons why Charlie’s expectations were not met.

The first indication that the there is trouble in the air is when the  it is mentioned that the fathers’ secretary responded with the details of the reunion, that implies that there isn’t much of a personal, father/ son relationship between the two.  A secretary handles a lot of responsibility for employers but some things should be done by the person themselves. Responding to a son that hasn’t been in your life for the past three years whom is reaching out for love would certainly be one of those times. His father was on time which gave the idea that there was some type of importance to the visit. When the two first encountered each other it wasn’t a warm fuzzy embrace, more like a hand shake and pat on the back. It was close enough of an encounter for him to get a whiff of the alcohol on his father’s breath and to notice the after shave. Because of the short amount of time the two had together they quickly moved right into heading to a restaurant. That’s when all the madness started. Immediately after walking into the restaurant Charlie’s father was demanding, loud and disrespectful.  The waiter wasn’t taking the abuse from him. He told him, “I don’t like to be clapped at. I think you’d better go somewhere else.” (Pg. 255)  Charlie followed his father to a different restaurant. They lasted at the next venue long enough to get drinks served and enough time to have a small conversation about sports before the father acted out again. The same behavior of rudeness and disrespect caused his father to leave that restaurant and go to yet another place. He seems to very bossy and controlling especially when he says things like, “Don’t argue with me, just do as you are told” (Pg. 255) to complete strangers. It got so bad that the fourth and final restaurant they attempted to eat at wouldn’t even seat them. They claimed that all the tables were reserved.   

Through the entire visit Charlie hardly spoke any words. His father was too busy shouting orders and demands to employees at the places they were trying to have lunch. Reference was made at three of the four places that the father was always ordering alcohol. That may have been a factor of the unmanageability that was going on with his personality. They met in the train station at noon and Charlie smelled whiskey on his father then so that tells us he had been drinking in the morning. After the last unsuccessful attempt to have lunch it was time for Charlie to get his train home. There was one last episode of his father’s personality aimed at the clerk at the news stand.  During the encounter between the two Charlie had to leave. The last words he said before turning around was, “Goodbye, Daddy.” (Pg. 256)

It leaves a sense of sadness that Charlie’s father couldn’t be present in the moment for the visit with his son. It costed him a relationship with him.

Love is a Waltz

Parents. Just thinking about them creates a waltz with nostalgia. Reminiscing about childhood memories, be it that family vacation to the far off land, dinner at six, Dad coming home from work, even that time spent in the bedroom after doing something stupid can easily invoke that warm fuzzy feeling inside. That is exactly the feeling that Roethke captures in his poem “My Papa’s Waltz.” In the poem, Roethke uses word choice, rhyme scheme and tone to emphasize the unconditional love felt for ones father.

Before getting into exactly how Roethke creates his waltz, it is first important to discuss the time in which it was written. “My Papa’s Waltz” is not a modern poem, it was instead written in the 1940’s. As such, the full understanding of this poem cannot be reached without first coming to terms with the fact that life was different back then. Mom stayed at home, raised the children and cleaned; while Dad was the bread winner. It was the father’s job to provide for the family, and the father in the poem clearly did as evident in lines nine and ten “The hand that held my wrist / Was battered on one knuckle; “. Without this understanding of the timeframe in which the poem was written, some of what’s said can be easily misconstrued as child abuse or neglectful parenting. Lines one and two are a perfect example of this: “The whiskey on your breath / Could make a small boy dizzy;” as without the knowledge that in the early 1900’s it was very common, and not looked down upon, for a laborer to work all day then stop by the bar before heading home, it would appear that the father was neglectful when this is not the case.

Knowing the pretext makes the theme of the poem become much clearer. Rather than a lamentation of his father’s drinking problem, lines one and two take on a whole new meaning. It instead becomes the loving memory of a boy who races to see his father as soon as he walks in the door. This becomes even more apparent when word choice comes into play. Words like “romp”, “cling”, “waltz”, and even the use of “papa” rather than father or dad, all imply a happy time. There are some negative words such as “death”, “scrape”, “beat” however in the way that they’re used, they’re not negative at all. For example, “But I hung on like death.” (Line 3) shows a son holding his father really closely, never wanting to let go. Later in the poem the “scrape” is caused by a belt buckle (Line 12) which again shows a really tight hug. In line thirteen, “You beat time on my head” doesn’t mean the father is beating the son, but rather tapping to the beat of the music. Now, Roethke did use these words for a reason. The alternating good and bad connotations create a real waltz like tone, and they also show how the father isn’t perfect but the son loves him anyway—unconditionally.

The tone of the poem is also very important in determining the theme as Roethke uses many tools to affect the flow and feel of the poem. First, he uses an ABAB rhyme scheme, which creates a verbal sway, a back and forth, like a waltz. He mixes in different rhyme patterns to add to this effect, rather than just using all one syllable rhymes (breath/death, for example) he also uses two syllable rhymes (dizzy/easy). Combine those with the alternating good and bad connotations mentioned before, and the poem reads like a happy waltz. If the poem was about anything other than happy childhood memories, then the tone would have been much different. It would have sounded harsh, or mellow, not happy. Certainly not waltz like.

                Just like in the father, there are some imperfections in the waltz-like tone.  For one, Roethke uses mostly six syllable lines, but occasionally, a line will have seven syllables. A great example of this is in line twelve “My right ear scraped a buckle.”, another example is in line two “Could make a small boy dizzy;” and interestingly both of these lines contain some of the more negative words of the poem. This is no mistake, because that pattern continues with line ten, a line that contains battered. Roethke does this on purpose; he does it to show that while nothing is perfect it doesn’t matter when it’s family. This is proven by the fact that while the pattern of six syllable lines is broken, it doesn’t have any bearing on the overall happy waltz-like tone of the poem just as while there are some bad times or negative words, they don’t have any real bearing on how unconditional a child’s love is.

Everyone loves their parents, even if they’re not perfect. Roethke would definitely agree with this statement, as evident by his poem “My Papa’s Waltz”. Be it through his use of alternating good and bad connotations, his ABAB waltz like rhyme scheme, his use of the slight mistakes in his poems layout, or just the happy tone, Roethke makes it perfectly clear how he feels about a parent child relationship.

Communication is Love

You sit at a table with the one you love. There is a problem in your relationship that you know threatens to destroy everything you have together. You know that if you talk about it your relationship could fall apart because of your opposing views. But if you let it go and ignore it the problem might become inevitably worse than if you just discussed it in the first place. So all you and your significant other have managed to do is scratch the surface and avoid real conversation about this dilemma and time is running out. This could be the death of love. This is exactly the the subject of Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills like White Elephants”. Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills like White Elephants” suggests that couples have difficulties communicating when a situation threatens to permanently change their lives.       

  

            In this short story, Hemingway opens with an american couple sitting at a table outside a train station in rural spain during the 1920’s. They are drinking beers and waiting for a train to madrid. The couple are indulging in light small talk but the conversation quickly segues into something of a much more serious nature. The man starts this new topic by telling the woman that “It’s really an awfully simple operation, Jig” (Hemingway 690). For the next sixty or so lines the man and woman bicker over an issue that is never revealed to the reader. The remainder of the short story, which is about five lines, consists of the man getting the bags and taking them to the other side of the station in preparation for the train which he is told, by the waitress, will be arriving in five minutes. Then he goes into the bar and has a drink before returning to his girlfriend. When he returns to the patio and she smiles at him. He asks if she is feeling better and with the last sentence she responds “There’s nothing wrong with me, I feel fine” (Hemingway 692). 

Throughout the piece there are many ways Hemingway proposes the theme of communication, namely characterization, symbolism, and tone. The characterization conveys the theme by presenting the man and the woman as relaxed and uncaring. As the story goes on though they seem to become more and more uneasy. When the woman describes the hills through the trees as looking like white elephants the speaker is symbolizing the couple’s unborn child. The tone of the story is one of reserved uncertainty and steadily increasing desperation and uneasiness. This conveys the theme by demonstrating the couple’s lake of real communication.

            The dialogue of the characters is the main attribute of characterization in this piece. We get to know the couple by what they say, not by a detailed description. The speaker does not even tell us what they look like. Yet if you read carefully, by the end of the story you feel like you know the man and woman relatively well. The dramatic shifts in conversation and toward the end, the woman’s determination to not carry the conversation any further are our best indications to the theme of communication. The fact that they are having a laid back conversation about their general surroundings and all of a sudden the man says “It’s really an awfully simple operation, Jig” (Hemingway 690) gives us a really clear indication that something isn’t right about this seemingly normal couple. for the first five lines of this new topic the man holds a monopoly on the conversation and the woman is hanging her head, looking at the ground. This suggests that they have had this conversation before and it was not resolved, adding to the theme of communication. For awhile the girl seems to rely on the man to carry the exchange. She is asking him if they will be okay if she has the abortion and he is reassuring her that they will be fine and everything will go back to the way it was before she got pregnant. Then at line fifty nine the girl says “Then i’ll do it. Because I don’t care about me” (Hemingway 690), speaking about the abortion. The man goes on to say that he doesn’t want her to have the operation if she is just doing it to make him happy. This chunk of dialogue, lines forty two through sixty nine, are a very strong indicator to a severe lack of real communication between the man and woman. A lot of this dialogue is very redundant with the woman asking if they will be okay and the man saying they will be. They never ask each other what they want and why, and they don’t weigh out the consequences. So they end up just talking instead of actually communicating. The same process starts again at line seventy one. The girl looks toward the mountains and says “And we could have all this” (Hemingway 691), referring to the world. The man then says “We can have everything” (Hemingway 691). For the next ten lines the couple have a very meaningless exchange of no we can’t, yes we can that just seems to upset the girl. On line eighty six the man says “I don’t want you to do anything you don’t want to do---” (Hemingway 691) and then she says “Nor that isn’t good for me, I know.” (Hemingway 691). This exchange tells us that she wants to get deeper into the conversation and talk about both of their wants and needs but all he is doing is saying he doesn’t want her to if she doesn’t want to, which effectively gets them no where, which again ties the dialogue back to the theme of a lack of communication. This also gives us a clue that they have had this conversation before because she was able to cut him off and finish his sentence. On line ninety eight the woman effectively ends the exchange by saying “Would you please please please please please please please stop talking?” (Hemingway 691). This sentence marks the end of the conversation. She is contributing to the lack of communication by refusing to open up and talk about what she really wants. From lines forty two to ninety eight both of the characters says a lot but none of it amounts to anything. He says she shouldn’t get the abortion if she doesn’t want to; she says she will get the abortion if he wants her to. Neither character wants to be selfish or make the other upset. So they spend the majority of the  piece talking but not communicating.

            The most important symbol in “Hills like White Elephants” are the hills that the woman sees through the trees. The woman is sitting at the table, drinking her beer, and looking at the hills in the distance when she says “They look like white elephants” (Hemingway 689). A white elephant is an idiom for a precious possession that is financially burdensome. In the case of the short story, the hills symbolize the man and woman’s unborn child. The couple is afraid of the uncertainty of their future and they know that getting an abortion is a huge decision. On the one hand they are afraid of the responsibility of taking care of a child. On the other hand they are afraid what might happen to their relationship if they do get an abortion. They feel that if they do get the abortion they might be damaged physically and emotionally. All of these things together contribute to the theme of Communication. Because of all their misgivings they avoid the situation by not devoting themselves to a conversation aimed at resolving the issue.

            The tone of the story is one of reserved uncertainty and increasing desperation and uneasiness. The story starts with the couple having a relaxing drink while they are waiting for their train. It is easy to discern this relaxed environment because they are commenting on the weather “It’s pretty hot” (Hemingway 689), and observing their surrounding “The girl looked at the bead curtain” (Hemingway 689). Although the conversation escalades quickly, there is a feeling of ease throughout the story. None of the character’s dialogue is rushed, angry, or packed with too much emotion. Even one of the most serious lines in the story, line eighty one “No, it isn’t. And once they take it away, you never get it back” (Hemingway 691), does not have a resentful feeling to it, it is almost playful. However, you can tell by the dialogue that both characters are trying to reassure not only each other but themselves by saying things like “I know we will. You don’t have to be afraid. I’ve known lots of people that have done it”. (Hemingway 690). This mixed feeling of ease and uncertainty demonstrates that they are trying to feel relaxed and act like everything is normal because they don’t want to face the real problem so they bypass it with self reassurance. By the end of the conversation about the abortion there is more of a feeling of desperation and uneasiness. The woman wants the man to engage her in an exchange that will have meaningful dialogue instead of just words. She demonstrates this by cutting him off and finishing his sentences, she is tired of the same old exchange of words. The man is uneasy because as the conversation progresses he is losing the ability to reassure her that everything will be okay. He is worried because she isn’t satisfied with his same responses anymore and he may have to start a conversation with some substance. She wants real communication but is afraid to engage it and he is afraid of a real conversation because he does not want the responsibility of a child.

            The theme of this Short story is that couples have a hard time communicating when it comes to issues they know could ruin everything. Through the use of characterization, symbolism, and tone, Ernest Hemmingway was able to build a perfect example of a couple avoiding things that they should really be addressing. Hemingway was able to keep the mood of the story light but by doing so he actually asserted the theme even more because this dilemma isn’t something that should be taken lightly. If you ever find yourself in a situation with someone you care about that could ruin everything, don’t turn your back, take it head on. 

Affection is a Waltz

Things were very different in the early-to-mid-1900s. The family dynamic of the time was much different than the family dynamic of today. Virtually every family at that time was a single income family—the father was the bread winner, while the mother stayed at home to raise the children. This very traditional lifestyle made inter-family relationships unlike what they are today. In My Papa's Waltz, Roethke uses an ABAB rhyme scheme combined with alternating good and bad connotations to create a tone that exemplifies a father-son relationship in the earlier half the 1900s.

To fully understand My Papa’s Waltz, it’s important to remember that this poem wasn’t written today. It isn’t a modern poem. This is important because without reading it in the proper context, it may seem like a poem about child abuse. This simply isn’t the case. When read in the context of the time that it was written, it shows a much more loving family. Without knowing that it was very common of the time for a father to work all day, every day, and then go to the bar and have some whiskey before coming home, lines one and two “The whiskey on your breath / could make a small boy dizzy” could come across very negatively. The key component in identifying that the speaker in this poem enjoys the time he spends with his father is the tone.

Roethke writes this poem in a way that almost sounds like a verbal drunken-waltz when read aloud. He accomplishes this with a skillful use of an ABAB rhyme scheme, which creates a sense of verbal swaying, much like that of a waltz. Instead of using strictly one syllable rhymes, like breath/death and shirt/dirt, he adds some two syllable rhymes as well such as dizzy and easy, which really embodies the back and forth swaying of a waltz. The number of syllables in each line is another clear indicator of an imperfect waltz—almost every line has six syllables but there are a few with seven. These lines show the stumbling (or miss stepping) of the tipsy father.

Another significant way that Roethke creates the tipsy tone is through the use of words with good and bad connotations. There are many words in this poem that might push the reader towards a feeling of child abuse, such as “death,” “unfrown,” “beat” and “scraped” their positioning with words of good connotation neutralizes and overcomes the bad connotations that these words carry. Saying “But I hung on like death:” (line 3) implies that he doesn’t want to let go of his father while they romp around the kitchen. There are two other lines that have the same implications. “My right ear scraped a buckle” (Line 12) shows that the speaker is hanging on so tight, that his ear is up against his father’s belt buckle, a clear sign of affection. Roethke even ends the poem with another similar line “Still clinging to your shirt” (Line 16). Had there been any abuse or any implications that the speaker didn’t enjoy the time with his father, after all of that, he wouldn’t have been still clinging. Romp is another word with a good connotation. Romping, which is defined as to frolic or to play boisterously by Princeton, would never be used to describe something that wasn’t enjoyable.

The tone of My Papa’s Waltz paints a vivid picture of a son who enjoys spending every possible second with his father. Papa (which is a much more loving pronoun than say, father) comes home from late at night from work, a little drunk. The speaker can smell the whiskey on his breath, but doesn’t care. He instead gives his dad a big hug and they begin to romp or play around. Their waltzing knocks a few pans off the shelves, and the mother gives a frown, but does nothing to stop the playful dancing of father and son. The playing eventually ends and Papa brings the child to bed where the child doesn’t want to let go. Without the proper tone, this poem could have been easily taken is a much darker sense. Did he really beat the kid on the head, or was he keeping a drum beat? The reader knows that it was a playful encounter between a loving father and son because of the tone Roethke creates using the rhyme scheme and alternating connotations.

After the First Death

Evidence in the novel After the First Death shows that, although at first it seems as though Ben is narrating, it is in fact General Marchand, Ben’s father, who is narrating the story. One of the first and, in my opinion, the most intriguing of the clues leading to this conclusion I have made is when Ben’s mother calls him by his father’s name. Normally a slip like this would be easily ignored and quite normal considering everybody makes mistakes, but Cormier made it quite clear when he added several sentences explaining that Ben’s mother never mixes their names up and that it was nearly impossible that she had accidentally done so.

The second most intriguing clue is the final Ben-Father chapter. Ben’s father is having a conversation between himself and the Ben that still lives deep inside of him:
Ben: But I was always here. Didn’t you know that, Dad?
Father: Sometimes I thought you were.
Ben: You just didn’t look hard enough or deep enough.

This shows that Ben wasn’t really alive and could therefore be incapable of telling the story from his point of view. This explains the clue from the first paragraph. Ben’s mother had called him by his father’s name because it was really his father doing the narrating.

Another intriguing clue supporting this conclusion is when the “doctor” is said to look like an old college teacher of Ben’s father. If it really were Ben narrating and he really was attending college, why would there be a doctor? This is really, in my opinion, Ben’s father in a mental ward, not Ben attending the same college his father attended. This would explain why there’s a doctor and why he mentions taking pills.

This is the evidence I chose to support that Ben was in fact not narrating the story and it was truly his father speaking from his son’s point of view because he is mentally ill from sacrificing his son for his country.

Nick Nailer

Nick Nailer, of Thank You for Smoking, is one of the most interesting and unique characters I’ve ever encountered in a fictional work. He has the hardest job in the world: being the public face of a conglomerate that kills almost twelve-hundred people a day. That conglomerate is known fondly as the tobacco industry, or “Big Tobacco.” He’s a vile, bloodsucking, mass murdering, profiteer who doesn’t mind twisting morality for his own benefit—and it makes for a very special character and for a great movie.

Every day, Mr. Nailer wakes up knowing what it’s like to be the most hated person in the country. And it doesn’t bother him one bit because he wants the money, the big bucks. In his own words when asked why he represented the vile industry, he whispered “Population control,” before going on to say “everyone’s got a mortgage to pay. 99% of everything done in the world, good or bad, is done to pay a mortgage. So, perhaps the world would be a better place if everyone rented.” Later in the interview, you find out that his wife has divorced him; he lives in his apartment, while his ex-wife (along with her new boyfriend) and his son lives in his excessively large, luxurious and expensive house, the beauty of which taunts me in my sleep.

Not surprisingly with a personally as cold and uncaring as his, Nick only has two friends. They are the representatives of the gun and alcohol industries, and probably the only people on the planet with personalities as pungent as Nailer’s. They meet every week, and call themselves the M.O.D. Squad, or Merchants of Death. During their meetings, they compare notes and brag about whose product killed the most people that week. Mr. Nailer wins the ghostly contest more often than not, and he savors the bitter-sweet victory.

There aren’t many people willing to twist the fibers of morality for his cause, but Nailer doesn’t mind doing just that. When confronted with a young boy who got cancer from smoking cigarettes on a talk show, he twisted the boy’s morbid condition to benefit tobacco. He called out the cancer researcher to the audience of the show, saying, and I paraphrase “the death of a customer would mean a loss in profits. How could tobacco want to lose money? A cancer death; however, would earn money for someone. Who? The cancer researcher. He’s the real monster.”
Thank You for Smoking’s Nick Nailer is a very special character. He has the honor of being one of the only main-character, protagonists who would be considered evil by traditional standards. It makes him an extraordinarily rich character, and he’s one of the few “bad people” that you get to know up-close-and-personal in any literary work.

The power of love in Slaughterhouse-Five and House of Leaves

If we deny love that is given to us, if we refuse to give

love because we fear pain or loss, then our lives will

be empty, our loss greater.

-Unknown

Love is a powerful emotion, perhaps the most powerful of them all. It can make or break men, driving them to the brink of insanity or pushing them to the top of their game. It’s both a motivator and a deterrent; both a blessing and a curse. When bestowed upon a once humble, indifferent individual his or her life is changed, for better or for worse, forever.

Perhaps even more moving than love itself is the power love has to change people, and the central role this “changing power” plays in novels. Particularly the role this power plays in both Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five and Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves. In both books the main characters are effected by love greatly, one driven to insanity and the other pushed to fame.

Navidson and Pilgrim are both heavily effected by love. Navidson and Karen are deeply in love with each other, but they aren’t loyal to each other. Navidson, a reporter always puts his adventuring spirit before his dearly beloved, and Karen responds by having multiple affairs. Pilgrim, on the other hand, never loved Valencia, his wife, but she was deeply and immensely in love with him. The situations that love puts both Navidson and Pilgrim in, making them feel empty at times and full at others, is a very large part of both character’s personalities.

In House of Leaves, Navidson’s feeling of emptiness left by his wife’s betrayal if symbolized as a house that’s bigger on the inside than on the outside; an obvious metaphor for a man distraught; his inner troubles are much larger than anything that could fit inside of a body so tiny in size when compared to his woes and inner void. The walls of the house shift more and more violently as Karen gets equally more and more upset with Navidson’s obsession with the house. Eventually, after the house, and Navidson’s obsession with it, cause them to separate the house swallows Navidson. Karen sensing that her true love is in danger rushes into the hallway that she fears and realizes how much she loves Navidson. The thought of the true love defeats the house, or fills the void, and she finds him almost instantly and when she does, the walls of the immense labyrinth dissolve. Navidson’s movie of the whole ordeal becomes a famous work of art, and its all because of the love that he and Karen share with each other. Love is crazy like that, it made the horrible situation that almost killed him, then it saved him from it and made him famous.

Billy Pilgrim has a similar story to tell. He marries Valencia, the daughter of a rich and powerful man in the line of work Billy wishes to enter: optometry. Billy never loves Valencia, even though she’s deeply and madly in love with him. When Billy’s plan crashes and he’s the only survivor she rushes to the hospital to see him and dies on the way, to carbon monoxide poisoning. Billy is never the same after this. He can no longer distinguish fact from fiction, present from memory. All he can do now is hope he can protect others from his sad fate, and he does so by prescribing corrective lenses for the soul: allowing people to peer into themselves and fill any emptiness, emptiness that
Pilgrim has to live with for the rest of his life.

These two characters have a lot of parallel aspects but are also distinctively different. While the both have pain caused by love, one’s pain comes from loving and the other’s comes from being loved without returning the love. Both men are very empty when things aren’t going their way, and Billy stays empty for the remainder of his life realizing that he should have loved his wife, a realization that came a little too late. The pain that is caused is a very central theme in both of the books, Billy’s “time jumps” and Navidson’s “house that’s bigger on the inside and on the outside” are both symbols of what love can do to men.

For better or for worse couldn’t be more accurate. It’s a vital line when getting married, and it’s the most uncertain. Will it be for better or for worse? It’s quite possible it could go either way, because love is the all powerful miracle and the malevolent execration.

I exist.

Madden claims that “The brief quotes that open this section also give you some idea of the number of compelling ethical, political, and social arguments that are connected to faith and down” and at first I was doubtful. Upon reading the quotes; however, I was easily swayed. There are many powerful quotes in the beginning of the section on faith and spirituality; they are all truthful and eye-opening. The quote that helped me understand the readings in this section the most was definitely Edmund Burke’s quote: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Short and profound, Crane’s A Man Said to the Universe is a complex poem of few words. Its meaning is ambiguous, but when combined with Burke’s quote, it becomes quite influential. This poem personifies the cosmos, by giving the universe a condescending personality. When in response to man saying that he exists, the universe replies “However, the fact has no created in me a sense of obligation” which basically means that just plain existence isn’t enough. To be noticed man must do more than exist, he must exist for the good of all things, not just for the good of himself. Burke’s quote is an excellent summary of the main theme of this poem: if a good man only exists, and doesn’t attempt to do good, evil wins. The same general theme exists in both the quote and the poem. Simply being there on the sidelines is no way to live and no person deserves any credit for simply being there. By contrast unlike the quote, the poem doesn’t verbally state that something more than existence would warrant the attention of the universe, though based on the condescending tone that the universe uses with the man, it’s implied. The universe is kind of saying “Yeah? Well, try harder and I’ll care.”

Crane is the youngest of fourteen children in his family. This obviously had a drastic effect on his view of the universe. Having to compete with his siblings for the attention of his parents is very similar to all of mankind competing amongst themselves for the attention of the universe. I can easily see a young child saying to their mother “Mom! I’m here! Look at me!” A mother of one would probably say something like “Yes, and you’re my special little darling,” whereas a mother of fourteen would be much too busy to give attention to her children simply because they’re there. However, if the child takes action and does something good or prevents evil from happening instead of watching, mommy is very likely to take notice—Just as the universe takes notice if a man does something good for everything.

The good versus evil theme runs deep in Crane’s poetry. In another poem, he writes “I stood upon a high place, /And saw, below, many devils /Running, leaping, /and carousing in sin. /One looked up, grinning, /And said, “Comrade! Brother!“” This poem in combination with A Man Said to the Universe, opens up a larger glimpse into Crane’s mind. In this poem, Crane is watching without evil without taking action, and the evil thanks him. Crane’s calling them “devils” shows that he isn’t one of them, and that he’s against the sin that they’re ‘carousing’ in, but by doing nothing, by just watching from his high, safe, place, the evil appreciates his not getting involved. This poem also ties in with Burke’s quote very easily—I’d wager that Burke and Crane would have been friends as they share an extremely similar view of life, the planet, and the universe.

Donald Vanouse of Georgetown University had this to say “Crane seems to encourage the reader to enrich and re-evaluate ideas about patterns of action and thought. Crane asks questions rather than providing answers.” Crane attempts to pull out the good in people by letting them know that their lack of action is very insignificant on the larger scale. Burke’s quote, by contrast offers an answer. It says that the actions of a good man will counteract evil. Burke supplies the answer to Crane’s questions.

Without the quotes at the beginning of this section, these writings would be much more difficult to understand. A Man Said to the Universe is a very open-ended poem. If I hadn’t looked at it through the lens supplied by Burke, my understanding of the poem would have been limited, at best. The compelling social issues confronted by Crane are much easier understood with the help of Burke.

Lyric Analysis: Meet Virginia

The song identifies its writer to be a citizen of Virginia who is either very learned in history or whom was alive during the independence movement in the colonies. Virginia, a tremendously influential colony in the late 1700's, was late to break its loyalty to the Queen. In the end; however, it was Virginia's own plan for independence that pushed the movement through the Congress and gave birth to the Declaration of Independence. The identifying metaphors begin with the very first line: "She doesn't own a dress, her hair is always a mess [...] she's beautiful." The line points out that Virginia isn't traditional, but is still beautiful anyway and this is very true of early Virginia. 'She' at one point printed its legal currency on tobacco, and a majority of its citizens "Smoke[d] a pack a day" which wasn't frowned upon by the Government they instead found "that beautiful." Being as influential as it was in the late 1700's, it "never compromises" but still generally goes along with the mainstream "babies and surprises" which are symbolic for what the average person

"[T]he Queen" with the word queen capitalized is a direct reference to the British crown, which Virginia initially supports. However after "Think[ing] about her scene" she reconsiders and gets ready to get down and dirty by "pull[ing] back her hair as [she's screaming]" that she no longer supports the Queen. The line “She only drinks coffee at midnight, when the moment is not right” further supports this. At the last moment, just as the independence movement is about to be shot down in congress, Virginia rejuvenates it with its caffeinated announcement that supports the independence of the colonies. "Her timing is quite - unusual."

The final very powerful metaphor lives within the line "her confidence is tragic, but her intuition magic." This line implies that Virginia puts her confidence in something that will be very difficult to succeed in, and that may have tragic consequences, but in the end her intuition to do so yielded a magical result. In history terms, this translates to the war for independence that followed in the days after Virginia announces its support for the independence movement. There was no way to know that the America's would win the war, there was only confidence and magical intuition.

Love is a grenade best covered in Chocolate

Love is an incredibly strange. If love were a bag, and life was the arm grabbing from it, sometimes life would receive a scrumptious chocolate, and sometimes it would receive a live hand grenade—but it would always go back for more. Margaret Atwood would certainly agree with this poorly constructed analogy as evident by her poem You Fit into Me. I agree with Atwood’s claim that love is both enduring and painful, both harsh and everlasting, because of my own experiences with the confusing, hurting, joyful topic.

You Fit into Me deals with the lasting effects that love has on a person over the course of a relationship. It starts out with “you fit into me like a hook into an eye” this is referring to a clasp on an article of clothing. Not only is it a perfect fit (like true lovers are) but it holds the clothing (or the lovers) together. The word eye is an allophone to the word “I” so it’s safe to assume that Atwood is referring to herself as the article of clothing, whom is being held together by the love she shares for that special someone. The placing of these romantic lines at the start of the poem isn’t coincidence. All relationships, all true loves, start with the feeling that the lovers were made specifically for one another. The poem then takes a drastic turn for the worst, by saying “a fish hook an open eye” which is incredibly interesting. At first glance it seems that Atwood is redefining the metaphor in the opening lines from romantic to tragic, but upon further inspection it’s evident that this isn’t the case. Instead Atwood, by use of this disturbing imagery, is making the point that love progresses. It goes from the giddy “we’re perfect for each other” feeling to a stronger feeling of being intertwined and interconnected and it does this through pain. Yes, getting a fish hook shoved through your eye would hurt, but ripping it out would hurt much more. If a relationship could endure the pain of shoving a fish hook through your eye, there is no stronger bind, however if it can’t, ripping it out would be like breaking up. Eventually the pain would go away—the scars wont—but it would be huge temporary increase in the pain. Again, Atwood is referring to herself. The poem seems as if she’s stuck in a bad relationship with someone she loves. She knows that ending the relationship, or ripping out the hook, would hurt a ton, but at the same time she isn’t sure if she likes the feeling of being caught in this bad relationship.

Morgan from PoetryConnection has this to say: “I have found that when someone enters your life very quickly it can be surprising, painful and hard to adjust. When this person is removed from your life you have a one sided and scared view of love and the world. I must convey pity for those of who have felt such moments. “Morgan has hit the nail on the head, this is exactly the feeling that Atwood is trying to portray. My own experiences are similar to Morgan’s, and the situation that Atwood is portraying in this poem. I’m currently in the process of attempting to remove the fish hook from my eye as painlessly as possible, and while the hook is still there, it is very difficult to move on or meet new people in a meaningful way.

You Fit into Me is a very interesting poem that defines both the good and the bad of love in just four small lines. My experiences fall into line with Atwood’s views on the topic, and reading this poem really opens old wounds. I definitely agree with You Fit into Me’s claim that love is enjoyable and painful. Be it chocolate or hand grenade, I will continue to reach into the bag of love.

The Emotional Baggage of War

One of the countless downsides of war is the emotional baggage thrust upon the soldiers involved in the war. “The Things They Carried” exemplifies the emotional luggage by using literal items that soldiers bring to war as metaphors for harsh emotions. “The Man He Killed” uses a monologue to give the reader a glimpse into the mind of a soldier, to let the world know how distraught he is over the killing of a man he may have been friends with otherwise. It’s chilling to read “The Things They Carried” and “The Man He Killed” together because they give the reader a feeling of overwhelming pity for the soldiers who now must lug around more than their fair share of burden.

“The Things They Carried” lists off the physical objects that soldiers “humped” through Vietnam. These physical things that they carry are certainly metaphors for the emotional things that they are forced to heave through this foreign land, and the theme is that the emotional sides of the items they carry are much heavier than the physical weight of the item. A perfect example of this is the character Henry Dobbins. Dobbins carries his girlfriend’s pantyhose, but with them he also carries the want for affection, compassion and comfort. This longing for love is much heavier than the twenty-three pound machine gun and the ten to fifteen pounds of ammunition that he carries. It is the same for every character in this story: Cross, who carries the maps and a compass, has to carry the responsibility of the lives of the rest of the soldiers in the Alpha Company. There is no burden heavier than this.

“The Man He Killed” makes similar claims, though does it in an entirely different way. Hardy supplies the reader with an unsettling monologue that gives a unique view into the mind of a soldier. This poem tackles the nature of war, and through that confrontation it opens up the mindset of a soldier and really shows how harsh the reality of war is on the psyche of a soldier. The dramatic pause in line 9, then the repetition of because is as if the speaker is trying to convince himself that he did nothing wrong. He goes on to say that of course the guy he shot was a foe, and the speaker expresses real doubt that this is the case by ending the stanza with the word “although” then going on to say that “well, he was only there because he was out of work, same as me” in more poetic words. This questioning of his actions, however long after-the-fact shows that the speaker may very well have deep psychological issues due to the emotional baggage of war.

Thomas Hardy and Tim O’Brien would definitely agree that the emotional cost on the soldiers is one of the most tragic parts of war. When O’Brien defines “hump” on page 1173 as “walk[ing] or march[ing], but [with] implied burdens far beyond the intransitive” he’s not just talking about the just physical weight, but also the emotional weight, that the items that the soldiers have to carry. Similarly the speaker in “The Man He Killed” expresses that war is “quaint and curious” and that if the speaker had met the man that he killed in a bar, he’d treat him to a drink, or at least help him to “half-a-crown.” This shooting of someone that he had nothing against seems to haunt the speaker, and one can only imagine how burdening that must be.

These eye opening tales use different styles to allow the reader to get the reader to understand just how destructive the overbearing emotions of war can be on the psyche of a soldier. Some of the literary elements used in “The Things They Carried” are metaphors, flashbacks, repetition and imagery. These elements used together are very effective, especially since the narrator is third-person omnipotent. “The Man He Killed” uses a bit of jargon, when the speaker says “but ranged as infantry” it doesn’t flow nearly as well as the rest of the poem, because they’re not really words that the speaker fully understands. It also uses an alternating rhyme scheme, to help the poem flow, and to make the pauses that much more dramatic.

“The Things They Carried” and “The Man He Killed” are two different works, by two different authors, but share a very similar view of war. Be it through the use of metaphors or dramatic pauses, these works allow readers to look into the minds of soldiers, and see how they’re emotionally affected by war, and the act of killing. These works share the theme: emotional baggage caused by war is overwhelming and forever damaging.

Things Fall Apart

A review of: Things Fall Apart

A book written by: Chinua Achebe

I couldn’t get into this book, at all. Not even a little. If I was to make a list of the best one thousand books I’ve ever read, this one wouldn’t be on the list. In fact, if I was to make a list of the worst two books I’ve ever read, this book would take second only to My Life by Bill Clinton. The best part of the book was when Okonkwo finally did himself in. This is because I knew that the book was finally coming to an end, and that the mental torture would soon be over. The most difficult part of reading this book had to be staying awake while reading it. Seriously though, I could drink several glasses of coffee, swallow a couple bags of sugar, then start reading this book. I’d be out in minutes. Because of this… “Minor” setback, the book took quite a while to read, and I had to do most of my reading in very uncomfortable places.

In a couple of years, some kid is going to bring this book up to me, and be like “hey mister, what one thing do you remember most about this book, and how did it change the plot?” and I’m going to respond with something like: That book, eh? Yeah, I still remember good ol’ Okonkwo killing himself. Obviously it brought the book to an end, which is why I remember it most.

The title of the book could indicate that the authors writing skills are falling apart, however I think he would like us to believe that the real meaning behind the title, a well thought out one, I might add, is just that. Things fall apart. Ways of life fall apart, people fall apart, the Igbo fall apart. Nothing can stand forever, and time is the hardest test anything, and everything, will ever face. Time rips things apart.

I’m sure many ‘types’ of readers will enjoy this book, ones that don’t fall asleep easily and ones that are interested in the ways of life of those who don’t have a lot of technology. A reader that is, for the most part, the exact opposite of me.

I always wondered why they needed to take a young virgin, and a young male, in compensation for the death of this guys wife. What’s the young male for? I also wondered why he got in so much trouble for shooting at his wife, he didn’t actually hit her, what’s the big deal? And I thought Okownkwo’s father was a pretty cool guy. I wonder why Okownkwo couldn’t be the same.

Sheeples

Sheep always follow the herd. Staying with the pack means protection; whereas, straying from the pack opens up the potential of being attacked and ultimately ending up in the bowels of a hungry wolf or other carnivore. Men too, always follow the herd. Being too different - dissenting from the norm - often lands men in trouble. Being marked as weird is the lowest of possible punishments that can range from being disassociated to being mercilessly and brutally killed. Straying from the herd is like leaving the wagon circle: it leaves you completely open to the barrage attacks that almost always ensues.

Ken Kesey makes his viewpoint on the issue of sheep quite evident throughout the text of his famed novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. According to the Kingwood College Library “Challenging symbols of conformity” is one of the predominate central themes of the novel (Goodwin). The predominance of this theme is visible in both the characters themselves and the situations the characters are put in.

The whole idea of the Asylum is a prime example of the fact that straying from the herd gets the unknowing wanderer tagged and excommunicated. Those weirdoes and freaks who decide to be different and step out of line get rounded up and tossed into a place that teaches them to stay part of the herd and to never stand out. The teaching is done by an evil natured woman who feels that she’s doing the right thing for the patients: teaching them to conform. Her method is, in essence, targeting a single patient, forcing him out of the herd, then having the rest of the herd pick on the targeted ‘crazy’. This teaches the lesson that being the target, the one outside the group, is the bad spot to be. It also teaches that one is safe while part of the big group, because you don’t get picked on when you’re not different from the others.

McMurphy goes through several stages while in the mental institute, and all of them cause a change in how sheepish he is. When he first becomes a patient in the hospital, his attitude is that he just needs to get the best of the head nurse. His efforts cause him to stray from the herd a little, which in turn amplifies the nurse’s interest in him and brings on a barrage of counter-attacks. Once McMurphy is told that he won‘t be able to leave unless the Nurse approves, he changes his chain of thought. He decides that the quickest way out of there is to just fit in, to just follow the herd and to be unnoticed. This works for a while, he manages to trick the nurse into being less interested in him while he’s just part of the group. Towards the end of the novel, McMurphy starts getting a soft spot for the other patients, and he used what he learned during the previous stages to do the best he can do for his new-found-friends. He combines being daring with being part of the group by convincing the group to do things with him, and by doing so he successfully holds the nurse off for quite some time. When he wants to watch TV; for example, he doesn’t sit down in front of the off TV by himself, he gets the patients to do it with him effectively hiding in the herd from the nurse.

Ken Kesey obviously believes that like sheep, most men just follow the herd. He also believes that men get punished for thinking outside of the norm, and he is blatantly opposed to this type of society model. Kesey would definitely agree with the quote “Most men are sheep,” and it wouldn’t be surprising if Kesey had read that quote multiple times while writing One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

Works Cited

"FREE Study Guide-One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey." PinkMonkey. 20 Apr. 2007 . 

Goodwin, Susan, and Peggy Whitely. "Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." Kingswood College Library. 01 July 2006. Kingswood College Library. 22 Apr. 2007 . 

Kesey, Ken. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. New York: Signet, 1963. 

"SparkNotes: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." SparkNotes. 24 Apr. 2007 .